Influence of Mandibular Residual Ridge Morphology on Pressure Distribution During Impression Procedures: A Model Experiment

Chang, Yuanhan; Maeda, Yoshinobu; Wada, Masahiro; Gonda, Tomoya; Ikebe, Kazunori

doi:10.11607/ijp.5719

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Areas with a flat ridge morphology, such as the maxillary palatal area and mandibular buccal shelf, have low pressure, and where the ridge morphology is sharp, the pressure is high. The thicker the tissue, the lesser influence it has on bone morphology, and the lesser the discrepancy in the maxilla with thick tissue [24][25][26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensional Changes in Extraction Sockets: A Pilot Study Evaluating Differences between Digital and Conventional Impressions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, soft tissue records are obtained by dental impression using impression materials; however, accurately recording the soft tissue immediately after tooth extraction is difficult. We measured the tissue changes after tooth extraction and compared two impression modalities (digital versus conventional) by measuring the changes at the soft tissue level. In this case, 15 patients with 17 single extraction sites were enrolled. Conventional impression (CI) using vinyl polysiloxane material and digital impression (DI) using an intraoral scanner were prepared immediately after extraction (T0) and at 2 months post-extraction (T1). Standard tessellation language files were generated for superimposition of the tissue surface. The tissue changes and discrepancies were measured on the superimposed surfaces. The differences in the changes and the discrepancy between the tissue surface impression at each time point were compared. At all measuring levels, the total tissue change was significantly different between groups DI and CI (p < 0.05). DI exhibited a more pronounced tissue surface at both time points, and the total discrepancy was statistically significantly greater at T0 than at T1 (p < 0.05). The values from DI and CI demonstrated small but significantly different for the same study material. The interpretation of such differences may depend on the clinical situation or scientific value.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%